Tungsten used for Daylight with DI

I'm going to shoot a short feature on 35mm. I would like to use 160T Vivid for most outside stuff, which is 85% and take 500T eterna for the rare insides and dusk, dawn stuff. I'm going to have a full DI.
The question are (never shot for DI):

1. When I shoot for DI do I have to give it the usual 2/3 stop of over exposure, or is there no need, because there is no copy process...
Or is this also important in DI case? It maybe could because of the fact that the slower layers are more asked then (less grain) and so on! But I don't really have an idea...

2. I would like to shoot as much as possible on the slower stock and there will be situations with a low light level where I have to decide to take the 85 or just leave it. Anyway, I think that the converting can be done easily later, but I'm not sure!?
And if I don't take the filter when I need the 2/3 of the stop, so why not maybe leave it away for the whole time and just correct that in the post to have it all even!?
Or is there another impact which the 85filter could have?

3. How important would you in general rate the importance of the stock when having DI in terms of colors for example. I know that if I take the Vivid, that it makes a difference because it is more rampant. What you don’t capture can’t be given to you by a DI! But that’s what I want.
But when I for example like the pushed Vision 1 500 much more than the Eterna that is just because of color. And the Fuji is cheaper (student film), so why not take it for the pushed stuff also and get rid of the color shifting later.

A student that go for a DI ??? , before i answer any of your questions ,which i think you have just about sorted out anyway , how come you can afford a DI and why would you want to do that anyway .?

I´m a student who studies in poland. Where you can afford a 1080p transfer. Thats not much, but I think most of the theatrical trailers are not more than 1080, so I can live with that as a result.And later on I have a sponsoring for a ARRI laser and all the stuff in between in Germany. I dont't think I sorted out all of my questions. What I wrote are just some "maybe" answers, with my student knowlage, which is normaly not including DI stuff as you seem to know.I dont have so much experiance, so I wanted to know, if what I thought is maybe right! ???So if you would like to answer now, I would be glad to read what you say!

...and why should I do what anyway? DI? Because I have some 3D stuff which needs to be combined with the actual picture.

2. I would like to shoot as much as possible on the slower stock and there will be situations with a low light level where I have to decide to take the 85 or just leave it. Anyway, I think that the converting can be done easily later, but I'm not sure!?And if I don't take the filter when I need the 2/3 of the stop, so why not maybe leave it away for the whole time and just correct that in the post to have it all even!?Or is there another impact which the 85filter could have?

Shooting Tungsten film in Daylight tends to overexpose the "Blue area" of the film, so you should try not to give too much overexposure without an 85 in daylight.

In my opinion, DIs make exposure problems (like not filtering and underexposing the blue layer by shooting daylight indoors or vice versa) worse, as they tend to accentuate grain. YOu're best filtering as you would for a finished optical print, but be aware that some cinematographers do vary their exposures for DI. There seem to be two schools of thought here: DIs accentuate grain, so more overexposure helps accentuate grain, and DIs aren't finished optically, so shooting the film at its box speed is OK because of all the tools for grain reduction and manipulation that are available in post.

A student that go for a DI ??? , before i answer any of your questions ,which i think you have just about sorted out anyway , how come you can afford a DI and why would you want to do that anyway .?

Please excuse my inexperience, John. But couldn't a DI be anything from one roll of Super 8mm scanned on a Rank to MiniDV, providing that that multiple Mini DV copies, or multiple positive print copies will be made? Because that would still, even for a feature film, be very affordable.

Please excuse my inexperience, John. But couldn't a DI be anything from one roll of Super 8mm scanned on a Rank to MiniDV, providing that that multiple Mini DV copies, or multiple positive print copies will be made? Because that would still, even for a feature film, be very affordable.

Ahhh yes, the new question of what deserves the "DI" title.

Basically, what I think most people stick to is SD = TelecineHD = HD Telecineanything 2K and over is a DI.

Here is my advice, use a LLD filter and don't bother about the exposure too much. Just remember that blue areas in the frame, like sky will be little bit noisy later. In this cases I would add a half of stop.However it's never the same picture as 85 filtered, I did it quite a lot with great results.

....There seem to be two schools of thought here: DIs accentuate grain, so more overexposure helps accentuate grain, and DIs aren't finished optically, so shooting the film at its box speed is OK because of all the tools for grain reduction and manipulation that are available in post.

Regards,

~Karl Borowski

I'd be wary of "noise reduction". I've been working with real time noise reduction since the mid 90's and frankly I see no difference in the kind used now and the kind available to me back then. (if you ever want to see real time noise reduction find a JVC-BR S video deck with a built in TBC and noise reduction card, it offers real time 16 position noise reduction. Anything more than about position 4 or 5 and the grain begins to trail.) The problem with noise reduction is it can only be done ONCE during all phases of post work, many times you don't know if anyone else will be doing noise reduction either before or after the DI."

Another way to ask your question is....using a slower stock and don't overexpose at all, or using a faster stock and overexpose by one f-stop. I don't have an answer for you.

However, I kind of like how tungsten light warms up a face when shooting in daylight situations. Sometimes an actors clothing will be more much more saturated and intense than their faces and the tungsten can serve to warm up and saturate the face so it's chroma levels are not that far off from their clothing.